At the private fundraiser held May 17 where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney candidly spoke about political strategy—noting that he saw half of the American electorate as freeloaders and "victims" who do not believe in personal responsibility—he discussed various foreign policy positions, sharing views that he does not express in public, including his belief that peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible.

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate dinner and has confirmed its authenticity. The event was held at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida, with tickets costing $50,000 a plate. During the freewheeling conversation, a donor asked Romney how the "Palestinian problem" can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."

Romney spoke of "the Palestinians" as a united bloc of one mindset, and he said: "I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way."

Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action: "[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

Romney did note there was another perspective on this knotty matter. He informed his donors that a former secretary of state—he would not say who—had told him there was "a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis." Romney recalled that he had replied, "Really?" Then he added that he had not asked this ex-secretary of state for further explanation.

Here's Romney's full response; he starts out saying he has "two perspectives," but as he answers the question, it turns out that's not really the case:

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.

After saying all that, Romney emphasized that he was against applying any pressure on Israel: "The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world."

On his campaign website, Romney, whose foreign policy advisers include several neocons known for their hawkish support for Israel, does not explicitly endorse the peace process or a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Republican Party platform does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: "We envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security." The platform adds, "The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US."

In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state." Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.

Throughout the hourlong fundraiser, Romney discussed other foreign policy matters with his patrons, especially Iran. He repeated the tough talk he has issued on the campaign trail, but he also provided an odd reason for drawing a red line with Tehran about its nuclear program:

Quote:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Romney didn't appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran's nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.

Talking to these funders, Romney also demonstrated that his campaign-long efforts to criticize Obama's handling of foreign policy in simplistic and exaggerated terms—he's an appeaser, he's an apologist—are not reserved for public consumption. Romney told these well-to-do backers that the president is a naïf with an oversized ego:

Quote:

The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things. And it's an extraordinarily naive perception.

Romney did share a disappointment with his patrons, noting it was "frustrating" to him that on a "typical day" when he does several fundraising events, "the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one." He complained that "the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq." But at this fundraiser, Romney received several queries related to national security—and was afforded the opportunity to tell his financial backers what he does not (and will not) tell the public.

The problem is that you are describing the Palestinians as a blanket statement, and as a population that isn't desperate and dynamic.

It's the same error Romney commits in the OP, and while it's clearly why you love whatever it is he had to say up there, it's why his statement (and yours) are drastically misguided.

That is factually inaccurate. There's enough bullshit wafting around in this thread, try to steer clear of hyperbole.

You're dead right that too much of the Palestinian leadership over the years, from Arafat to Hamas, have cynically capitalized on fear among Palestinians in order to entrench their own power. But that does not mean the Palestinian population does not want a two-state solution.

One compromise? One?

How about the '67 borders. That's a pretty significant idea for compromise that Palestine has long endorsed but Israel is just now moving away from.

Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

Having just seen Romney's response, again, I don't know what he's saying that's untrue.

I wish he'd talk like this more in public...

It's his opinion, it's not necessarily true or false, it's just a historically radical perspective of the facts on the ground.

One that is born not of any remote understanding of foreign policy, but instead one that is bought and paid for by AIPAC.

I wish he'd talk more like this in public too. Because it exposes the radical stances his campaign is taking, and it has the added bonus of absolutely deflating the Jewish vote for the Republican Party.

Well, it wasn't me who lobbied for Hamas to participate in the democratic process, it was GW Bush and the failed Roadmap to Peace. I never completely understood Bush's proclamation that 'Islam is Peace'. But I never understood Bush's proclamation that 'Man and fish can coexist' either.

Probably, but as Romney correctly points out the Palestinian people are supporting leaders who don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestinians are freaked the **** out. Most of them have absolutely no idea who or what they support. They believe they are being pushed off their land, which isn't exactly an inaccurate way of describing things.

You radicalize when you are desperate. And when things are desperate, you look to the people bellowing the biggest words and more aggressive ideas, as well as the people providing the most domestic aid.

Right now, regrettably, that's Hamas. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

Israel didn't step back from the deal brokered by Clinton, Arafat did. No, the deal wasn't based strictly on the '67 borders. It included some of the settlements in Israeli territory as well. Like I said before though, it was the high water mark for Israeli concessions and I doubt they'll get back to that point anytime soon.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

You could say that is the problem, since no compromise can be made. The Palestinians want Israel extinct. Israel wishes to continue to thrive as a nation and a people. This positions are mutually exclusive, no middle ground or compromise can be reached. One side would have to concede the point to the other.

Israel didn't step back from the deal brokered by Clinton, Arafat did. No, the deal wasn't based strictly on the '67 borders. It included some of the settlements in Israeli territory as well. Like I said before though, it was the high water mark for Israeli concessions and I doubt they'll get back to that point anytime soon.

I completely agree and think Arafat was stupid to reject it. I just could not recall if the deal strictly adhered to the 67 borders or not.

Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

I actually don't blame either side for the strong hesitancies they hold. I don't.

But unlike the Republican/Likud alliance, I believe a two state solution is achievable in the twenty first century.

I also recognize the damning barriers in the way to that solution. But it does not have to be that way.

They do share the same bank accounts. They do have the same leadership.

Merging in all but name means they are pursuing the exact same goals, and are committed to furthering one another's cause against their domestic oppositions.

Do you realize how absurd you sound saying things like this? I don't know if you think we've got a large anti-semite audience here for your performance, but maybe we do. Are you getting much jew-hate rep?

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.